StupidNation Posted September 15, 2008 Share Posted September 15, 2008 "He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview. Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion." http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/posto...awal_129150.htm TRANSLATION: Obama, "Oh, oh, oh... let me look like the Messiah and save these troops." That's change we can believe in. I also find it funny the AP does a pic of Obama this morning on the Wall St. crisis the the pic is focused on "Change" below him than his face. Yeah, no bias of course. The medias head-bobbing below the table is a disgrace, as well as their purposeful stifling of true democracy by having other 3rd parties who have a base of over a million to not have their voices heard with legitimate debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted September 15, 2008 Share Posted September 15, 2008 The agreement in question is related to the continuing role of American troops in Iraq; such as if there will be bases, what will troops be allowed to do as opposed to Iraqi troops, and what would be the legal consequences of actions by American troops. This is not an agreement that states, "we will withdraw X number of troops by Y date", as the writer mistakenly infers and you mistakenly interpreted. Obama doesn't want to be tied down by some agreement that Bush negotiated without Congressional approval. Bush avoids calling it a treaty because he wants to bypass Congressional oversight. And I thought Bush/McCain said troop withdrawls should be based on results on the ground, not negotiated timetables, so which is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StupidNation Posted September 15, 2008 Author Share Posted September 15, 2008 And I thought Bush/McCain said troop withdrawls should be based on results on the ground, not negotiated timetables, so which is it? It has nothing to do with them, but Obama's 2010 timeline. You seem to think this is a McCain/Obama thing. No, it's just an Obama thing. Staying on topic is a tough task for some, but Obama's timeline is a problem. I will admit that Bush's new timeline is political in nature, but that was not my point at all. I know that not supporting Obama=Bush is the only way people think who are partisan. Obama can't get to 2010 unless troops are leaving now. He can change policy once elected, but it will be impossible by 2010. Why should we believe Barry Soetoro, the fact he was registered as a Muslim in grade school lies about it, or anything else he says when he lied to get where he was BUT PRETENDS he's different. Go ahead, tell me that equals Bush if it makes you feel better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted September 15, 2008 Share Posted September 15, 2008 It has nothing to do with them, but Obama's 2010 timeline. You seem to think this is a McCain/Obama thing. No, it's just an Obama thing. Staying on topic is a tough task for some, but Obama's timeline is a problem. I will admit that Bush's new timeline is political in nature, but that was not my point at all. I know that not supporting Obama=Bush is the only way people think who are partisan. Obama can't get to 2010 unless troops are leaving now. He can change policy once elected, but it will be impossible by 2010. Why should we believe Barry Soetoro, the fact he was registered as a Muslim in grade school lies about it, or anything else he says when he lied to get where he was BUT PRETENDS he's different. Go ahead, tell me that equals Bush if it makes you feel better. Obama has always said that he would set clear timelines for leaving Iraq, but they were open to modification if the situation called for it. The argument has been that Bush/McCain have not previously even been willing to set clear timeline goals, which doesn't give the Iraqis the incentive to resolve their political issues. And what does how a child in elementary school is registered by his parents have to do with the election? And if it's so, is there something wrong with being a Muslim? Or do you prescribe to the idea that all Muslims are bad? And the fact that he chose to become a Christian means nothing? So anyone who isn't born and raised as a Christian is also bad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 What a shock! The Messiah who campaigned on "bring the troops home" tries to get the Iraqis and US generals to leave them put until after the election. So much for "change", huh libs? Turns out Obama is just as much of a scumbag as everyone else in Washington. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 And what does how a child in elementary school is registered by his parents have to do with the election? And if it's so, is there something wrong with being a Muslim? Or do you prescribe to the idea that all Muslims are bad? And the fact that he chose to become a Christian means nothing? So anyone who isn't born and raised as a Christian is also bad? Agreed, but with that said you shouldn't bad mouth Romney because he is a Mormon just like Obama. Romney gave a speech about being a Mormon and Obama has avoided it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 I was for troop withdrawls before I was against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts